(Close Window)
Topic: Utsukushii - Fraser Parker - Review
Message: Posted by: Magic.Maddy (Sep 16, 2014 12:54PM)
I got a copy of Utsukishii to review from Fraser.


This is Fraser's method to discover someone's PIN number.

To be more exact, this is Fraser's way to know a single digit number that someone is just thinking of. I believe this is an amazing discovery. This is based off of an old number force. This force used to be completely unheard of, but in modern times, it is kind of being brought back and being used in more routines. However, this is completely different than the force because you don't force a number! The number thought of by the spectator is genuinely a random number and genuinely personal and genuinely different each and every time you perform it. This is why Fraser has dubbed this "Force/Nonforce."

The method is very solid. It uses no psychological forces. It works 100% of the time. The method is also extremely well hidden. I know that if Fraser had performed this on me, I wouldn't have been able to understand how he knew my number. (Even though I'm very familiar with the force it is based off of.) This is for two reasons:
1) He has broken the force up into two -seemingly unrelated- parts.
2) He has eliminated half of the work.

There IS math involved, but only very basic single digit addition. I usually don't like math magic. But this definitely isn't math magic. It isn't a "process" of various adding/multiplying/subtracting. Rather, it's a logical way to get a single digit number that is personal to them. I love the thinking behind it. I still have no idea how Fraser thought to use the old force in this way.



Fraser teaches how to use this principle along with a Michael Murray principle to determine a spectators PIN number. (This routine inspire Peter Turner's famous PIN routine.) This will work great with a PIN revelation, but I think it could be taken even farther than that. You could use it have someone think of a letter of the alphabet, or even a certain item from a list. In this way, you could force literally anything. A name, object, ANYTHING.

The great thing is, this uses no props. It's all done with your words.


The only think I don't like about this is because of the method, you couldn't really perform this for family or friends. It would have to be someone you don't know too well. But over all, I like it! I give it 9/10! To order, contact Fraser Parker! You can go to his site, or Pablo Amira's, or contact him on Facebook.
Message: Posted by: Jacob Smith (Sep 28, 2014 10:55AM)
Hey guys, wanted to chime in and chat on how amazing this little piece of pure mind power is. I've been using this effectively over the phone and in person to absolutely destroy barriers in performance. On it's own it is a facinating principle that has a lot of potential in and of itself, but used in the context of a pin/phone code reveal, it absolutely kills and can really leave people in complete wonder. Literally this is so powerful that you HAVE to aproach it with a fun and light approach or people will be scared...use your senses boys and girls.

-Jakob
Message: Posted by: Peter_turner (Sep 29, 2014 03:39PM)
"Fraser teaches how to use this principle along with a Michael Murray principle to determine a spectators PIN number. (This routine inspire Peter Turner's famous PIN routine.) This will work great with a PIN revelation, but I think it could be taken even farther than that. You could use it have someone think of a letter of the alphabet, or even a certain item from a list. In this way, you could force literally anything. A name, object, ANYTHING".

Just to clarify, it was a routine from my Biggerfish 2 that inspired this pin routine. I posted the entire history of the effect in latest and greatest but for clarification I will add it here. It was Michael Murray's routine with playing cards that inspired me to take the principle further and create a pin divination.

-

Two years ago I received a telephone call from Michael Murray and he shared with me over the phone a principle (that is used at the core of this routine). The initial use for the principle was with playing cards - I loved the idea and started realising that the principle could be applied to other things, I noticed how it could be used for pin codes (and many other things).

I refined a pin divination that could be done over the phone using Michaels principle and something from Annemann's 101 methods of forcing. This worked incredibly and Michael gave me his blessing to perform it and lecture it (I was the only person with live and production rights from day one).

Michaels principle came out some 6 months after and I waited till after Michael released it and I got his blessing 6 months later to release my effect in biggerfish 2 naming it the life equation variation and venom variation using a principle by Bob King.

I had shared this effect with Fraser before Blackpool and he showed me his variation, the one thing I really liked was that he got his digit from the digit before instead of (like in mine forcing four digits) and treating each as a separate entity (owners of the effect will understand).

I went away from Blackpool liking that and went back to my routine and worked out what I didn't like presentationally and logically. There was several things I didn't like in the original and took into account how Fraser had simplified the process and realised we had been approaching it from the wrong angle. I went back to the drawing board and changed it once more simplified it even further, made it logical (from my point of view) and then created a solid presentation based around the new idea.

Mark chandaue, Paul Shirley added additional ideas. I then remembered back to Fraser having a force at the start and contacted Fraser recently to add an additional idea which he did. He then asked for my permission to release what you guys are reading now.

Just saves the wolves coming on here and pulling the thread to pieces for mis information.

Pete x
Message: Posted by: insight (Oct 2, 2014 05:48PM)
Thank you for clarifying! Seems to me that you and Michael were such a large part of this work---you guys deserve the credit!

Regards,
Mike




[quote]On Sep 29, 2014, Peter_turner wrote:
"Fraser teaches how to use this principle along with a Michael Murray principle to determine a spectators PIN number. (This routine inspire Peter Turner's famous PIN routine.) This will work great with a PIN revelation, but I think it could be taken even farther than that. You could use it have someone think of a letter of the alphabet, or even a certain item from a list. In this way, you could force literally anything. A name, object, ANYTHING".

Just to clarify, it was a routine from my Biggerfish 2 that inspired this pin routine. I posted the entire history of the effect in latest and greatest but for clarification I will add it here. It was Michael Murray's routine with playing cards that inspired me to take the principle further and create a pin divination.

-

Two years ago I received a telephone call from Michael Murray and he shared with me over the phone a principle (that is used at the core of this routine). The initial use for the principle was with playing cards - I loved the idea and started realising that the principle could be applied to other things, I noticed how it could be used for pin codes (and many other things).

I refined a pin divination that could be done over the phone using Michaels principle and something from Annemann's 101 methods of forcing. This worked incredibly and Michael gave me his blessing to perform it and lecture it (I was the only person with live and production rights from day one).

Michaels principle came out some 6 months after and I waited till after Michael released it and I got his blessing 6 months later to release my effect in biggerfish 2 naming it the life equation variation and venom variation using a principle by Bob King.

I had shared this effect with Fraser before Blackpool and he showed me his variation, the one thing I really liked was that he got his digit from the digit before instead of (like in mine forcing four digits) and treating each as a separate entity (owners of the effect will understand).

I went away from Blackpool liking that and went back to my routine and worked out what I didn't like presentationally and logically. There was several things I didn't like in the original and took into account how Fraser had simplified the process and realised we had been approaching it from the wrong angle. I went back to the drawing board and changed it once more simplified it even further, made it logical (from my point of view) and then created a solid presentation based around the new idea.

Mark chandaue, Paul Shirley added additional ideas. I then remembered back to Fraser having a force at the start and contacted Fraser recently to add an additional idea which he did. He then asked for my permission to release what you guys are reading now.

Just saves the wolves coming on here and pulling the thread to pieces for mis information.

Pete x [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Fraser Parker (Oct 5, 2014 12:52PM)
The main difference is how I get the first number. This takes up the bulk of the explanation in the manuscript and is something that can be applied to many other routines, other than a pin code divination. I decided to teach it the way I had been using it (with the pin reveal) and it was with Pete's permission as well as Michael's that this was put out. So yes, credit must go to both of these fine gentlemen for sharing with me what they have done previously and allowing me to put out my take on all of this.

Thanks again Pete and Michael.

This will be on general release via Murphy's very soon as a physical book as well as a pdf, so will also be in all good magic shops in one form or another.

In the meantime, you can still get it from my personal website.

I am really pleased with how this has turned out and am really excited about this becoming a wider release.

Yours,
Fraser
Message: Posted by: bond19 (Oct 7, 2014 08:39AM)
This is dynamite.. plain and simple!
Message: Posted by: Thaddius.Barker (Oct 17, 2014 10:15AM)
I hate being "that guy," but I have to give my honest opinion of this effect. I purchased this ebook from Penguin today, read through it, and it is not at all what I was hoping for. I am not going to reveal the method out of respect for Mr. Parker, but I feel a bit cheated by the description. Mentalism is my forte; I love performing mind-to-mind. This is not at all mindreading, nor does it come across that way in the described performance.

As previously mentioned, it involves math magic - which unless you are performing Gridlock or Add-A-Number or something similar, should never be part of your performance. It requires the spectator to do math in his or her head; there is initial guesswork involved. It is correct in saying that - once you get the momentum going - you are 100% accurate in your revelation. But for almost $50 I expected something more mystical. I did purchase Fraser's "True Mysteries II" which I am very excited to receive, but I cannot pretend that I will actually use this one. I wish that I could obtain a refund so I could use it toward some of his other effects that look amazing.
Message: Posted by: DynaMix (Oct 17, 2014 12:33PM)
I have been on a blaze purchasing lately but I've steered away from this for the same reasons you and others have outlined. I purchased a piece of my mind which has a similar routine, and to pay $33 for a similar effect, with math magic tendencies, does seem "off" to me.

One of the rare situations where the price I think does more damage to the effect. Just my opinion...
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Oct 18, 2014 05:28PM)
I see no reason why some little math can not be present in an effect where you divine numbers.

The "math magic" is simply some adds.

I don't remember the ad, but when I read the book I was expecting something like that.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Oct 19, 2014 06:40PM)
I like this effect, but it should be pointed out that as presented (and without tipping methods) this works better early in the year. By December you need to do some verbal juggling, which is clumsy, in virtually all cases. This is a severe limiting factor on this effect.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Oct 19, 2014 08:42PM)
I do not get your point... Only question might be whether he or she had her birthday already this year or not.... Jan
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Oct 20, 2014 10:19AM)
Yes, Jan. And by December 11 out of 12 will have had a birthday. If they already had a birthday, a note of artificiality creeps into the number force. To an intelligent, thinking audience it shows clink that should not be there. Unless you can come up with a good reason to ask the question, it is a weakness of the routine. I can come up with a good reason, but because of this I cannot wholeheartedly recommend this routine.
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Oct 20, 2014 11:58AM)
I don't know exactly how to say this in english, but: "How old will this year?" or "How many years you will have this year?". It sounds perfectly good in Spanish. I think this "problem" is not soooo difficult to avoid. If you think the question sounds weird you can ask for the next year.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Oct 20, 2014 02:19PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2014, Cristobal wrote:
I don't know exactly how to say this in english, but: "How old will this year?" or "How many years you will have this year?". It sounds perfectly good in Spanish. I think this "problem" is not soooo difficult to avoid. If you think the question sounds weird you can ask for the next year. [/quote]
It is as simple in English as it is in Spanish. And in December eleven out of twelve of your audience will already have had their birthdays, so the number they come up with when you ask that question is one out from the number you want them to work with. So you have to backtrack. It is simple, but it is a weakness of the trick.
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Oct 20, 2014 05:12PM)
What I meant is that if you ask his age at the end of the year you don't need to fish anything. Or if you ask for the age next year. It doesn't matter if his birthday is in December or whatever.

Sorry if I didn't explain well.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Oct 20, 2014 06:10PM)
Asking for the age at the end of the year, or their age next year, is very artificial. When someone asks your age the normal meaning is on the day they ask. Changing what you mean when you ask is not difficult, but it is artificial. And that will allow suspicious minds to begin trying to figure out methods. And that is a weakness. The fast that you will get away with it 99 times out of a 100 doesn't change that.
Message: Posted by: Machina (Oct 20, 2014 06:27PM)
Every effect had a chink in the armour doesn't it?
Nail w%/$=$ break, sl3!ghts go wrong, something falls, someone sees something.

Adept and clever performers have worked around this in the past as they take into account the weakness and use it as a strength. I've heard of performers state: Magicians might go about this by doing x, but you will experience true mentalism now when I use nothing but my mind to get the same results. They then do x

This is one of the most devastating effects I have ever seen or used. Please, think for yourselves, write your own presentation, use it as part of something greater, unlock a gym padlock, unlock a phone, write down nine numbered memories, get them to focus on one. Reveal their memory.

The numbers make complete sense and is far removed from mathemagic when using the statement: Let's make this completely random, lets use information that is personal to you.

This effect is devastating, get it.
Message: Posted by: Cristobal (Oct 20, 2014 06:33PM)
You're right, it sounds weird. But I think it isn't worst than looking a word in a book or something like that. Keep in mind you're looking for a random number, so it's not important the actual age or the age of this year (I keep thinking it sounds better in Spanish).

It's one of those things that will sound bad if the performer is not confident with the method. But otherwise spectators won't give it any importance.

Anyway I agree it's a problem of the method.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Oct 20, 2014 08:03PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2014, Machina wrote:
The numbers make complete sense and is far removed from mathemagic when using the statement: Let's make this completely random, lets use information that is personal to you.
[/quote]
No, the numbers do not make complete sense. You can make them make sense, but as it stands, they don't. Most spectators won't spot the anomaly, which is great. But it is there. I just think that potential buyers should be aware of it, that's all. I am not going to debate the point. The anomaly is there, and I have pointed it out. Beyond that it is up to buyers.

I still think that this is a very strong effect.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 21, 2014 12:58PM)
We just have to face the fact that there's going to be a certain number of spectators, usually the smarter ones, who will always think "maths trick" when you start an effect like this. I doubt there is much that can be done about it.

The problem for me with Utsukushii is the number of calculations the participant has to do in their head in order for the mentalist to reveal the participant's pin. Surely the mentalist should be figuring that stuff out? I think the Peter Turner solution is stronger because, not only are there fewer calculations, but the participant's efforts are focused on figuring out YOUR pin, which I think helps justify the mental gymnastics. Though not without its own issues, I would personally recommend Your Intuition as the more organic solution based on the core method.
Message: Posted by: Myke Phillips (Oct 21, 2014 02:07PM)
I'm awful at math, but am I correct in thinking it can only be one of two possible outcomes after you arrive at a 4 digit code?

Example:
Lets say, after everything you arrive at the pin code "2468" the pin is either 2468 or 1357, one digit less for the anomaly. So, the first number "guess/reveal" is a 2, if the response is negative then its a 1 and you adjust the rest of the numbers accordingly "1357".

If this is correct then I would not even bother mentioning the part that causes the anomaly because after the first number "guess/reveal" you will be back on track.

I'm probably missing something here so apologies if it doesn't make sense.

Myke
X
Message: Posted by: Galileo (Oct 21, 2014 02:17PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2014, DynaMix wrote:
I have been on a blaze purchasing lately but I've steered away from this for the same reasons you and others have outlined. I purchased a piece of my mind which has a similar routine, and to pay $33 for a similar effect, with math magic tendencies, does seem "off" to me.

One of the rare situations where the price I think does more damage to the effect. Just my opinion... [/quote]

Since when did a Piece of My Mind cost 33$? On another note it was nice to see an negative review that didn't get hate from everyone.
Message: Posted by: Myke Phillips (Oct 21, 2014 02:57PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2014, Galileo wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 2014, DynaMix wrote:
I have been on a blaze purchasing lately but I've steered away from this for the same reasons you and others have outlined. I purchased a piece of my mind which has a similar routine, and to pay $33 for a similar effect, with math magic tendencies, does seem "off" to me.

One of the rare situations where the price I think does more damage to the effect. Just my opinion... [/quote]

Since when did a Piece of My Mind cost 33$? On another note it was nice to see an negative review that didn't get hate from everyone. [/quote]

I think DynaMix was referring to Utsukushii being $33??
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Oct 21, 2014 03:38PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2014, Myke Phillips wrote:

Since when did a Piece of My Mind cost 33$? On another note it was nice to see an negative review that didn't get hate from everyone. [/quote]

I think DynaMix was referring to Utsukushii being $33?? [/quote]

I bl*ody hope so! Otherwise Michael Murray has really diddled me!
Message: Posted by: Machina (Oct 21, 2014 05:33PM)
I perform this guilt free. Pretty much everything out there that isn't gaffless or propless has an anomaly. Why should I write it down? Why does a mentalist have cards, why use a book test, put stuff in envelopes? But... We have all gotten over those anomalies. There will always be a certain number of spectators when they see a mind reader who think: this is fake.

Utsukushii is hands down my favorite effect, with many avenues still to be explored by fertile minds.

Who said: "When words are the method".

Get this, play with it, explore it, develop it.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Oct 21, 2014 06:35PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2014, Myke Phillips wrote:
I'm awful at math, but am I correct in thinking it can only be one of two possible outcomes after you arrive at a 4 digit code?

Example:
Lets say, after everything you arrive at the pin code "2468" the pin is either 2468 or 1357, one digit less for the anomaly. So, the first number "guess/reveal" is a 2, if the response is negative then its a 1 and you adjust the rest of the numbers accordingly "1357".

If this is correct then I would not even bother mentioning the part that causes the anomaly because after the first number "guess/reveal" you will be back on track.

I'm probably missing something here so apologies if it doesn't make sense.

Myke
X [/quote]
Myke, I wish it was that simple. No, the anomaly creeps in at a different stage.

Having pointed out the anomaly to prospective buyers, by way of fairness I have to add that I will almost certainly use this because I do like the effect. I would give this a thumbs up with a reservation - but definitely a thumbs up.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Oct 22, 2014 12:07PM)
I prefer your intuition for the reasons stated, particularly the fact that the spectator is guessing your pin. However the only ways to get your intuition is either to buy the hard back version of Michael's book (which is a hugely worthwhile purchase) or buy Pete Turners upcoming When in Rome which is another worthwhile purchase. If you have either of those then $33 may be a hard spend. If you have neither then based on your intuition I would say that this is money well spent.

As far as the whole birthday bit there are so many ways around this depending on whether this is stage or walk around. Stage I'd just use the Duninger ploy. Walk around I'd either just do a star sign reveal first, that will give me a good indication of whether they are likely to have had their birthday yet. Failing that I could do a CT/billet p**k and have them think of their favourite birthday present they got this year, if you haven't had your birthday yet just go with what you are hoping to get this year. Then before the reveal "is this something you got .... Or something you are hoping to get?" Boom ... Job done. That's off the top of my head with about 10 seconds thought, I'm sure with a little bit more thought you could come up with better.

Mark
Message: Posted by: DynaMix (Oct 22, 2014 09:26PM)
I was referring to utsukushii (as opposed to apomm) price wise...

I'm familiar with both now (finally) and I'll say I prefer iulym pro to everything! Ha!

Utsukushii has too many gymnastics for my taste and PT's intuition isn't surefire right off the bat (he really does use that PF a lot) so both have their weaknesses IMO.

All great options to have in the toolbox though.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Oct 23, 2014 12:01PM)
In Michael's book it has my update to your intuition which is 100% and in Pete's upcoming book it has an updated version of the way I perform it which is also sure fire to the point that it forms the basis of my opener (which is a different version again).

Mark
Message: Posted by: DynaMix (Oct 23, 2014 07:08PM)
I'm still getting through it, definitely plan to reread a few times and get all of the nuances down. You're thinking always impresses me Mark.
Message: Posted by: John C (Oct 25, 2014 06:48PM)
I love intuition and subliminal based routines. Maybe I'll write a book.
Message: Posted by: DynaMix (Oct 25, 2014 10:23PM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2014, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
In Michael's book it has my update to your intuition which is 100% and in Pete's upcoming book it has an updated version of the way I perform it which is also sure fire to the point that it forms the basis of my opener (which is a different version again).

Mark [/quote]

Hey Mark I carefully reread the version printed in APOMM - unless I am completely off I don't see how it is 100%? I did read your contribution (which definitely helps) - I also think it's awesome you use this as an opener. I'd love to hear more!
Message: Posted by: psychomind (Oct 26, 2014 06:12AM)
[quote]On Oct 25, 2014, DynaMix wrote:
[quote]On Oct 23, 2014, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
In Michael's book it has my update to your intuition which is 100% and in Pete's upcoming book it has an updated version of the way I perform it which is also sure fire to the point that it forms the basis of my opener (which is a different version again).

Mark [/quote]

Hey Mark I carefully reread the version printed in APOMM - unless I am completely off I don't see how it is 100%? I did read your contribution (which definitely helps) - I also think it's awesome you use this as an opener. I'd love to hear more! [/quote]

Yap, me too I am confused. Mark's updated version does increase the rate but not completely 100%.
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Oct 27, 2014 02:27PM)
I haven't got the hard back version of the book so can't tell how accurately it is described in the book, I didn't write it up and didn't get the chance to view it before it went to press. For Pete's When in Rome I wrote it myself in considerable detail and in both versions it is 100 % There are 2 possible outcomes in both versions with one outcome being a tiny bit cleaner than the other. The version in when in Rome one of the outcomes has them holding a business card with your pin that has been in play since the start.

Mark
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Oct 27, 2014 02:30PM)
If you have the hard back version of a piece of my mind I am more than happy to fill in any gaps in my presentation.

Mark
Message: Posted by: Mark_Chandaue (Oct 27, 2014 02:48PM)
My guess is that the version in the book is a very very early version of mine. What I suspect has happened is that when Pete first showed this to me I had an idea to push towards the pf. Pete loved the idea and wrote it up. However over the next week or so this developed further into the version I used and showed Michael at camp mental. I think that by the time it went to press we knew it had been typed up and sent to Michael and assumed that the version that was typed up was the full version (it developed from a nice idea into something solid over only a few days). I will send Michael the version that both Pete and I assumed that he had so that he can send it to everyone that has the book.

Mark
Message: Posted by: Gourmet (Oct 27, 2014 03:05PM)
[quote]On Oct 27, 2014, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
I will send Michael the version that both Pete and I assumed that he had so that he can send it to everyone that has the book.

[/quote]

Thank you very much, Mark :)
Message: Posted by: Michael Zarek (Oct 27, 2014 03:48PM)
[quote]On Oct 27, 2014, Mark_Chandaue wrote:

I will send Michael the version that both Pete and I assumed that he had so that he can send it to everyone that has the book.

Mark [/quote]

Great news :D
Will be getting "When in rome" anyway, and yet it's cool to get this updated version sooner.
Message: Posted by: DynaMix (Oct 29, 2014 11:05AM)
I am going to give Mark's ideas a whirl in one of my upcoming gigs as soon as I feel comfortable. Absolutely brilliant and changes the effect IMO!
Message: Posted by: LeafyMagic (Nov 28, 2016 08:32PM)
It's an alright effect I guess, but there are much better ways to get information from a spectator. Writing something down, for me, is infinitely easier to justify than the spectator doing mental gymnastics